Young Earth Creationists

[PedroPonyLikesCrisps]

I know Young Earth Creationists exist, I've seen them on telly, but never met one in real life, so I'm just wondering if anyone here is one or knows one or whether they are actually just incredibly rare and reserved for extreme tv debating!

"Best claimed YEC and Christians invented Science? Really?"

Modern science, that is. It's common knowledge, Infamous. Even a creationist-hater like Dawkins admits it. (I forget which debate it was in. I think I've seen all of them multiple times. It's fun to see his arguments get demolished.)

I'd say a lot of it had to do with the Protestant Reformation. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, one of the first books printed was the Bible. Once people could read it for themselves instead of it being the domain of the priesthood, knowledge exploded and scientists wanted to discover "the mind of God" (as Kepler put it).

Thank you for making my point, Ellie. Don't shift the goal posts on me now

Well, alright? But so what? Their creationism was down to ignorance. What's your excuse? Seriously.

Sorry but you have your facts wrong here. Sir Francis Bacon is commonly known as the father of the scientific method - also known as the Baconian method

No. Roger Bacon played an earlier role. He had the right idea about empiricism if perhaps he went about it in the wrong way. We can even trace ideas like that back further to people like Aristotle. Like anything else, the scientific method emerged out of the thinking of quite a lot of people. Standing on the shoulders of giants, remember?

But look on the bright side. At least you didn't say Kevin Bacon, right?

Don't patronise me, please.

"IF I accepted your three starting assumptions, then I would agree with every single word you've posted."

Oh good. At least I'm getting through to someone. And if I were an atheist, I would believe the earth is old, evolution is true and the Bible is full of myths. And I have the ability to assume those are true for the purpose of understanding someone else's view.

"(Yes, yes...I know it's all in the eye of the beholder. Don't take it off on a tangent)."

Uh, I don't do that. You apparently have me confused with Pedro. I'm the one who always wants to stay on track. This whole silly issue is a tangent.

"Science does not begin with assumptions on this level."

I know that and I never said it did. But conversations like this blog post MUST if we want to achieve some level of understanding. Do you not see that this whole stupid issue is a side-track? You and Pedro are talking about the correct way to start a scientific theory (which I agree with) while I am talking about the correct way to start a discussion (which neither of you gets yet). Pedro should never have even brought this up in the first place and you shouldn't be encouraging him to take us far afield of the discussion at hand. Is there no one on here who understands what I'm trying to say?

This issue has become one more thing like the speed of light that has gotten blown out of proportion for absolutely no reason and it's getting us nowhere. ICBINEG and I are making nice progress though I think. He/she is a clear, methodical thinker like I am. She might actually convince me to believe in evolution. I would honestly love that. (You might not believe me but it's true. I've already admitted many times when I was wrong and I'm not bothered by having to do it again. It is the way of science.)

"Don't patronise me, please."

I'm not patronising you, Ellie. It's funny. Have a sense of humour. I need to make jokes once in a while to lighten the mood. Otherwise I'll start crying.

"No. Roger Bacon played an earlier role. He had the right idea about empiricism if perhaps he went about it in the wrong way. We can even trace ideas like that back further to people like Aristotle. Like anything else, the scientific method emerged out of the thinking of quite a lot of people. Standing on the shoulders of giants, remember?"

Correct and the link I posted about Francis Bacon specifically said that:

"This method was influential upon the development of scientific method in modern science; but also more generally in the early modern rejection of medieval Aristotelianism."

And if I were an atheist, I would believe the earth is old, evolution is true and the Bible is full of myths

I don't believe those things because I'm atheist, but because that's what the observations support. What do you say to those high-level scientists who are also Christians like Kenneth Miller Paul Davies or Francis Collins. They don't believe what they do because they are atheists, do they?

He/she is a clear, methodical thinker like I am Well, half of that sentence is true, anyway.

So, you want to explain to everyone why you believe what you do. OK. But you've gone about it by flagging up non-existent flaws in evolutionary theory and then wonder why the rest of us are objecting. Seems a strange way to go about things.

But I'm glad ICBINEG is getting through. If she succeeds, will you be honest enough to admit it?

Oh, FFS - History of the Scientific Method

God, you're frustrating. Get something wrong then pretend you never said it in the first place. Yeah - you're going to get on soooooooooo well debating atheists

At least I can admit when I'm wrong.

I've not seen any evidence of this.

Neither have I. We proved you wrong (amongst other things) about varying light speed and you airily brushed it aside as "irrelevant". How is that you admitting you were wrong?

And you've contradicted yourself so many times, it's quite hard to keep up. Notably here, where you said:

No it doesn't. I don't believe in the soul. The Bible doesn't teach it

Going on a few sentences later to say:

Based on the Bible, I always say, "You don't HAVE a soul, you ARE a soul." Same idea

Sorry but you have your facts wrong here. Sir Francis Bacon is commonly known as the father of the scientific method - also known as the Baconian method.

Actually, as it happens (and you'll like this, best) the Baconian method was merely an EVOLUTION of previous methods. The earliest records of scientific methodologies date back to the Egyptians in 1600BC. Pretty sure they weren't YEC.

I'm not patronising you, Ellie. It's funny. Have a sense of humour

OK. Fair point.

Pedro should never have even brought this up in the first place and you shouldn't be encouraging him to take us far afield of the discussion at hand. Is there no one on here who understands what I'm trying to say?

Actually, I think it's quite relevant in scientific discussion and you've still failed to proceed your starting observation. Talk about sidelining.

best

I said: "A simple statement that you do indeed now understand that mutations can be beneficial regardless of environment will be enough to demonstrate that it is worth continuing."

and: "Certainly you must retract the statement that we already agreed that they cannot be universally beneficial - that certainly hasn't happened."

You now say: "No, we never discussed that as far as I can remember. But I can assume it for the sake of argument so you can make your point.

However down thread in clear black and white our previous conversation included:

I said "As an example, a mutation to an atpase may very slightly increase the rate of conversion of atp to work. The cell in which this occurs will simply be ever so slightly more energy efficient. There is no disadvantage to this. The cell is more fit."

You said: "Fair enough. Thanks, ICBINEG."

I said: ^"No there need not be a cost...you are making it more efficient.

Think of it like simply making a better car engine. It might cost more to produce a more efficient engine but it doesn't have to...it could be cheaper to make AND more efficient. Win win."*

You said: "Beneficial mutations are often the correcting of mistakes, right? As one guy put it, it's like punching somebody with a dislocated arm in the shoulder and accidentally putting his arm back in the socket."

Do you remember talking about it now?

To represent this as us having previously said that no mutation can be beneficial is frankly incredible.

Do you see my problem with what you have said?

I'd like to ask how anyone on here feels about so-called "theistic evolutionists" like, say, Francis Collins. You might, on the one hand, say, "Well, I don't accept their belief in God but at least they believe in evolution." But I have at least three problems with them:

1. Most of them, in my experience, don't even really understand evolution. (Although it's fair to say that neither do most of the atheists I talk with.) I think many of them claim to believe it because they just don't want to rock the boat. But they often can't explain natural selection it when asked.

1. Those who do somewhat understand it certainly don't understand it in the same way a materialist like Dawkins does. They inject God all along the way as a Divine tinkerer with the natural process by perhaps selecting or directing the 'random' mutations so that they really aren't random after all. This view is repugnant to me. I would just as soon be an atheist and fully accept a completely natural explanation before I would accept this view.

1. They tack God onto the beginning - a "God-of-the-gaps" argument - which I find equally repugnant.

What say you nice folks?

As with most conspiracy theories, isn't THE most important question here WHY?

Why would God give us all of this overwhelming evidence that the universe is more than 6000 years old if it isn't.

Why would he make a fossil record that appears to date back millions of years.?

Why would he show us light from objects that appear to be billions of light years away?

Why would he give us dating methods that seem so testable and reliable if they werent?

Why would we seem to fit so well with evolution if we don't?

Why would he make it look like dinosaurs died out before humans came to be around if they didn't (and what did happen to kill them all off that didn't affect humans)?

Aren't famine, flood, war, disease tragic accidents, evil in the world and the fact that God doesn't directly communicate with us all, enough of a test of faith?

1: The man who sequenced the human genome doesn't really understand evolution?

2: Dawkins' & Collins' understanding of evolution is identical....and Dawkins references Collins frequently as an expert.

3: No, I don't understand that either. But at least they're not denying the evidence that's under their own noses to support their beliefs - which is what you're doing.

And, by the way, every atheist on this thread understands evolution better than you.

100% agree with everything January has just said too.

BestValue telling posters to have a sense of humour? Oh good.

How many young earth creationists does it take to change a light bulb?

Six. And then they all rested.

or

None, they all use candles.

You might want to check out the history of the scientific method Best. Even cycle back a few years to the Golden Age of the Islamic Empires and check out a few scientific discoveries. Just saying. The were pretty busy in the fields of medicine, astronomy, maths, to name a few.
I know western based Christians hate to acknowledge people's outside of Europe actually doing anything...

For ICBINEG when she comes back.

I was lying in bed last night thinking about infinity trying to wrap my tiny mind around it.

Infinite time in a finite universe (IF such a thing exists):

An ant on a football going round and round and round could spend an infinite amount of going round like that. But the football is not infinite in size.

It's possible you've already explained the answer to this to me but in a different way, and I missed it. If so, sorry.

But does this make sense logically? Have I missed something fundamental?

Ta :)

I'd like to ask how anyone on here feels about so-called "theistic evolutionists" like, say, Francis Collins. You might, on the one hand, say, "Well, I don't accept their belief in God but at least they believe in evolution."

So you ignore everything above and come in with a probing question to which you have already formulated an opinion and presumably think a discussion about would help your cause.

I struggle with the idea that a creator could make such a vast and complex universe, just to populate one tiny, insignificant planet. And then use the whole thing as an exercise to see who gets to go into the creator's playground after a few dozen years.

A religious friend of ours gave us a Noah's Ark set when the DTs were born (a nice wooden boat with an assortment of pairs of animals). It always amuses me that the lions both have large manes, and are thus presumably enjoying a same-sex relationship.

It always amuses me that the lions both have large manes, and are thus presumably enjoying a same-sex relationship.

It's the details that count! Perhaps this is why they ended up mating with the dolphins and this massive speciation occurred!

ellie hmm well if you substitute an electron for the ant and a proton for the football....

I don't think there is any problem with something that is finite in size existing for an infinite time.

I personally cannot envisage an infinite time....

best and I were discussing the existence of an infinite object for a finite time. There is also no problem with this, and bizarrely I find that quite easy to envisage...

I think best's issues were along the lines of if time is infinite then how can 1 second have meaning? And equivalently, if the universe is infinitely large then how can 1 metre have meaning?

It is actually the same situation but you can move the non-equality into the space dimensions and ask what would happen in a universe that has finite length in 2 spacial dimensions but is infinite in the other...a tube universe if you like....would your meter ruler work in two directions and then explode when rotated to the third? An interesting thought experiment maybe....